The South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Commission unanimously approved, with little discussion, the administrative rule regulating the state's new Nest Predator Bounty Program on Friday after holding a public hearing on the proposed program on Thursday.

Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

The state has a new nest predator bounty program despite criticism that it could unbalance the state's ecosystem, and it was implemented before a public hearing was held on its funding.

The South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Commission unanimously approved, with little discussion, the administrative rule regulating the state's new Nest Predator Bounty Program on Friday after holding a public hearing on the proposed program on Thursday. The administrative rule will now go to the legislative Rules Review Committee for consideration.

But the program began on Monday using the state's existing coyote bounty rule, and as of Thursday evening, 26 people had turned in a total of 300 predator tails, according to GFP staff. In the new bounty program, the state will pay $10 per tail for raccoon, striped skunk, opossum, badger and red fox. The program is open from April 1 to Aug. 31 or until the cap of $500,000 is reached, whichever occurs first. The program is open to only South Dakota residents and each household can receive a maximum of $590 for the tails. Only animals who have been trapped and harvested in the state are available for the bounty program, according to GFP. Tails of road kill aren't eligible.

The program is part of Gov. Kristi Noem's "Second Century Initiative" to boost pheasant and duck hunting in the state. GFP Secretary Kelly Hepler told the Commission that the program's success will be determined by the "heartwarming stories" of families getting outside to trap rather than focusing on a specific number of tails as a metric of success.

Prior to the Commission's vote, GFP Commissioner Doug Sharp said it's "a great program" and is one example of Noem's dedication to getting people outside.

"I'm excited to see what the true outcome is once we can reflect back on what was achieved with this program," Sharp said.

However, several state wildlife and sportsmen's groups took the GFP Commission to task on Thursday for allowing Second Century trapping programs totaling $1.4 million to be implemented before residents and the groups could voice their concerns about them.

Julie Anderson of Rapid City questioned whether her opinion or the public hearing mattered when the state had already begun the program.

"Public land is not yours or the governor's to do with as you please, but yet again, you do," Anderson said during Thursday's public hearing.

Three representatives of state sportsmen's groups said the lack of a public hearing before the department spent money hurts the Commission's credibility. It also diminishes the Commission's authority and its ability to support the public, which is the Commission's purpose, said Terry Mayes, vice president of the South Dakota Wildlife Federation. The Commission represents landowners, sportsmen and recreational land users and the Commission's main job should be overseeing the GFP Department's budget, said Jeff Olson, a former GFP commissioner and a current board member for a number of sportsmen's clubs.

About a dozen South Dakota residents submitted comments ahead of the public hearing to support the bounty program, and nearly 100 people submitted comments opposing it. But eight state wildlife and sportsmen's groups requested in a letter that the Commission delay its decision on the bounty program until it had been vetted.

John Cooper, former GFP secretary and former GFP Commission chair, read a letter from the eight groups requesting clarification prior to the program's implementation on: how long the state will operate the program, whether a budget has been created for the program, what metrics would determine whether it was a success and the impact the program would have on the state's wildlife fund that is used to leverage federal funding.

Public hearings give residents the ability to comment on the state's large expenditures, Cooper said. State staff said the process was legal, but "legal doesn't make it right," he said.

Boost outdoor interest

In addition to the $500,000 for the predator bounty program, the GFP Department also gave away 16,500 live traps at a cost of about $900,000 on March 1 and is offering 13 trapping education classes across the state that began Wednesday as a way to increase trapping while reducing nest predators in the state. This is in addition to the $1 million in funding that the Legislature narrowly approved to boost pheasant habitat as part of the Second Century Initiative.

Several sportsmen's groups said that their membership is divided in support for the bounty program, but they all support the department's efforts to increase interest in trapping and the outdoors, especially among the state's youth.

John Hopple, president of the South Dakota Trappers Association, said it's a win if they get someone interested in the outdoors via the trapping classes, even if they decide to not trap in the future.

"They may not stay a trapper forever, however, they may the next fly fisherman, they may be the next deer hunter, they may be the next pheasant hunter and maybe your next conservation officers," Hopple said.

Bounty program questions

Public comments questioned whether the bounty program is supported by scientific data showing that it will boost the pheasant population. They also questioned why the state was allowing the bounty program statewide when it would largely benefit East River pheasant hunting, and why the state was enticing residents to kill native species to benefit pheasants, which aren't native to South Dakota.

The state regulates how often traps should be checked, but some questioned how the state will monitor trap checks with an increase in inexperienced trappers participating in the bounty program. Public hearing speakers also questioned the timing of the bounty program, saying that it coincides when the animals will have offspring, who could also die if their parent is killed — which could lead to a much higher death toll than the program's 50,000 tail maximum.

May Wichers of Hot Springs, who grew up in a hunting family, said she's concerned the bounty program could lead to a drastic decrease in the animal populations. Every animal has a purpose in the ecosystem and taking out certain animals could lead to an imbalance, said.

"You take out the small predators and then pretty soon, you have a whole bunch of rabbits and rodents that people are going to be complaining about. Are you going to kill them next? Are you going to have a bounty on that?" she said. "It's all a circle."